The U.N.

The U.N is a Globalist agency funding the Globalist agenda. It does not support responsible government. Ultimately it will produce a fascist one world state.

​Positivists do not need or support social engineering whether locally or on a global scale, we do not support the top down, hierarchical organizations of the globalist hegemony. We the people are the rightful owners of our political jurisdictions.

Social Postivists will implement direct ownership, direct markets and a direct democracy based on direct funding.

​Support direct markets and stop the fascist takeover of the planet. Voice your opposition to the formation and funding of supra-national agencies such as the U.N.

​Please do not support the U.N. by supporting any party or organization that supports, funds or promotes the U.N.

Democracy

The politics favored by the West is democracy. It is democracy that has often been credited with providing the most developed nations with their culture. Without some degree of democracy culture becomes a social service provided by the State as it is in dictatorships. Communist and fascists states follow this rule.

Democracy is not a simple, one size fits all, concept however. For the most part what is called democracy is technically what is otherwise called Representative Democracy. In representative democracies the people do not vote directly on legislation but for a representative and he or she who acts on their behalf.

​Representative Democracy has become popular because Direct Democracy easily decays into a tyranny of the majority. Direct democracies in which everything is put to a vote are also prone to endless debate.

Representative democracies generally use a proportional system of voting there being the probability of a tyranny of the majority possibility with the First Past The Post electoral system. However, the proportional system is generally employed simply because one large city generally contains the larger part of the population and would dominate any majority vote system.

Without the representative system 2 or three larger cities would effectively control most national governments.

Minority rights are not protected in a Direct Democracy. In Representative Democracies the elected official is supposed to represent all of his or her constituents. In reality he or she is embedded in a particular culture and mind set and tends to vote for those things that reflect his or her own personal preferences. It does not help that those who elect him or her tend to represent a particular cultural type.

​Depending on the politician and his or her party he or she may or may not represent the true interests of the members of his or her constituency. The degree to which his or her votes favor one or more sectors is only to be guessed at.

​There is the need not to anger or isolate one’s core support group, so legislation will tend to favor a particular constituency for the most part though effort will be made to give the appearance of voting in response to more pluralistic reasons.

​What few people understand is the difference integrity makes to how well a system works. A tyrant with integrity may well serve the people better than a democratic leader with none. Justin Trudeau was democratically elected in Canada but has abandoned any pretense at being a representative of the majority population. His concern as was his father’s, is to ensure himself a place in the globalist future he is building for Canada. Trudeau is not in the conventional sense of the term, a Canadian leader. It is more honest to label him a Globalist. He is at least as determined to get a place in history as was the elder Trudeau. This explains, at least to some, his support for Islam. Islam plays a key role in bringing forth the New World Order. Despite the certainty of some that he is a convert to Islam the greater probability is that he is aligned with Islam because Islam is aligned with the globalist agenda.

The problem is that no one can predict where integrity will be found. Democracy is less a way to ensure good government as it is a way to revoke support for a government that is governing badly. However, as our pair of Trudeaus have demonstrated, a lot of damage can be done in four years.

​It is obvious there is a weakness in democracy that is being exploited by liberals. The reliance on the support of a majority keeps a party sensitive to the needs of the people but it is also a call to pander to the common denominator or average voter. This reliance on the popular vote does not require personal integrity and indeed is more likely to benefit the player, the popularizer, the superficial politician who can play up to the masses. Democracy is susceptible to fascist takeovers of an influential leader. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny even if the tyranny expresses the will of the people. The free world condemns dictatorship because it is said to take away people’s freedom, but this is not absolutely the case. A dictator may have the power to take away people’s freedoms, but it is not an essential component of a dictatorship. Democracies can also take away people’s freedom if a strong leader has a large proportion willing to resort to tyrannical means to support his initiatives.

​But is not pandering to a majority a good thing so far as democracy is concerned? Is not expressing the will of the people, as expressed in the popular vote, what democracy is all about? Not when the government becomes nothing more than a bread and circuses exhibition. When what sort of bread and circuses the people will get become the deciding factor in an election then democracy is or becomes a farce. When elections become solely fixated on what the majority will get in the way of benefits it becomes increasingly difficult for a responsible party to be elected and more likely the least responsible and least ethical party will win.

​What of a democratically elected leader who leads their nation into insolvency, as happened recently in Greece and is now playing out in Venezuela? Greece is the home of democracy, but democracy did not save it and in fact has contributed to its being taken over by a foreign power, the UN. The World Bank is not a pro-democracy institution. Its focus is on the open borders and free trade policies of the globalists. What options are open to the people to take back their power and head the country down a different road when their governments conspire to take them elsewhere?

Direct Democracy is a way to express the popular will that eliminates the tyrannical aspects of representative democracy if it truly is made direct. This is extremely important to get right. Governments ought not to impose their will on the people not even with the blessing of the majority of voters. Candidates are voted in to represent the people in a more controllable way. But changing semi-direct democracy with representative democracy does not eliminate the problem of tyranny or statism nor globalism.

​Government ought to function as an administrator of the public weal. Politicians are not called on to be social engineers. Governments are the servants of the people not the boss of the people. But this situation can only exist in a direct market economy.

​The real problem with communist governments was not their economics but the fact that they existed as the people' s bosses and performed as social engineers instead of public servants. But how much different are modern governments from the tyrannies of the past, so long as they continue to exercise a social engineering function?

​Mankind has had many issues with liberals and liberalism. Liberalism cannot survive without generating social costs. The only way social costs can be justified is if the end justifies the means. This is the role or purpose of a social agenda, the social agenda is posited to be so important, so vital, that whatever means are required to implement that means is justified. The end, by virtue of the agenda, justifies the means. If this is ok with you then you are not paying the costs of these choices or these costs are not what are meant by social cost by virtue of the fact you support the policy and are glad to pay its costs. But does this mean that others ought to fund your vision and your values?

Social Positivists have the policies and programs to overcome the social costs created by conventional systems of governance. Social Positivists have the tools to enable politicians and public servants to be the administrators they ought to be and remove from them the role of social engineer.

When voters are owners and politicians’ administrators, owners vote as a budgetary line item. Thus, a pro vote is a capitalization proposal. When costs are assigned to the proper account direct democracy becomes a system of fairness and justice.